Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 23STCV16113, Date: 2025-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV16113, Date: 2025-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV16113 Hearing Date: January 6, 2025 Dept: 29

Kim v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
23STCV16113
Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative

The Court will call this matter.

The Court’s tentative ruling is to grant a very brief continuance of the trial date and not to extend or reset any discovery deadlines.

Background

On July 11, 2023, Hee Jung Kim (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Shamon Michael Todman (collectively “Defendants”) for negligence arising out of an alleged vehicle accident on November 1, 2022.

Defendants filed their answers on August 10 and November 13, 2023.

On December 2, 2024, Defendants filed this motion to continue trial. Plaintiff filed an opposition on December 24, and Defendants filed a reply on December 30.

The case has an unusual procedural history. On filing, the case was assigned to Department 30. When Department 30 was closed on May 13, 2024, the case was reassigned to Department 31. When Department 31 was closed on June 24, 2024, the case was reassigned to Department 32. When Department 32 was closed on December 9, 2024, the case was reassigned to Department 29.

At the time of reassignment, trial was (and is) scheduled for January 7, 2025, with a Final Status Conference scheduled for December 24, 2024. On December 10, this Court continued the Final Status Conference to the time of trial.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8), provides that the court has the power to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice. “The power to determine when a continuance should be granted is within the discretion of the trial court.” (Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1603.) “A trial court has wide latitude in the matter of calendar control including the granting or denying of continuances.” (Park Motors, Inc. v. Cozens (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 12, 18.)

“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).)

“Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) “The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” (Ibid.) Circumstances that may support a finding of good cause include:

“(1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice;

(5) The addition of a new party if: (A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or (B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case;

(6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or

(7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.”

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)

“In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).) California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d) sets forth a non-exhaustive list of factors that the court may consider:

“(1) The proximity of the trial date;

(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party;

(3) The length of the continuance requested;

(4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance;

(5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;

(6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;

(7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials;

(8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial;

(9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance;

(10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and

(11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.”

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)

“A trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of section 437c.” (Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529; accord Cole v. Superior Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 88.)

Discussion

Defendants request a trial continuance, arguing that they need more time to complete discovery and that the trial should be reset as a jury trial, as Defendants each demanded a jury trial with their answers and the jury fees have been. When the motion was filed the depositions of Plaintiff and Defendant Todman still needed to be taken. (Doroshow Decl., ¶¶ 4, 5.)

Plaintiff opposes the motion. Between the filing of the motion and the filing of the opposition, the depositions were completed. (Rogari Decl., ¶¶ 2, 3.)

In reply, Defendants argue that they need more time to investigate Plaintiff’s injuries and wish to seek an independent medical examination. (Reply, 2:8-11.)

The Court begins by noting that there does not appear to be any dispute that the matter should be set as a jury trial.

Due to the unusual procedural history of the case, and for reasons relating to the Court’s own schedule, the Court finds good cause to grant a brief continuance of the trial, so that a Final Status Conference may be conducted during the week of January 21-24 and that the trial may be rescheduled on a date on or after February 5, 2025.

The Court does not find good cause to extend or reset any discovery deadlines. The parties have known of the trial date and the discovery cutoff for more than a year, and there has been no showing as to why this was not more than an adequate amount of time to conduct and complete all necessary discovery.

Accordingly, the motion to continue trial is granted in part.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS IN PART the motion to continue trial.

The Court CONTINUES the trial date to a date on or after February 5, 2025, and resets the Final Status Conference to a date on or after January 21, 2025.

No discovery deadlines are extended or reset by this order.

The trial is reset as a jury trial.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.